The word “institution” seems to carry negative connotations for many people in our culture today. In the realm of spirituality, this is often expressed as being “spiritual but not religious.”
“Spiritual” is associated with discovering deeper meaning in life, acknowledging the mystery and wonder of existence, and growing in our ability to live together in meaningful human relationships.
“Religious” is associated with rigidity, dogma, rules, regulations, and restrictions. Institutions are seen as religious, not spiritual.
But, can spirituality thrive without an institution?
Individual private personal spirituality may survive without the support of any form of institutional structure.
There are many wonderful ways to nurture a personal spiritual life. Going for a conscious walk in creation will deepen my awareness of the mystery and beauty of life. Playing with a baby will connect me with the gentleness and openness that are essential ingredients of a spiritual life. Making a donation to a worthwhile cause may satisfy my spiritual need to make an offering in thanksgiving for the blessings I perceive in my life. I can do all these things as a private individual.
But, Christian spirituality has always held that there is a vital communal dimension essential to the development of a strong healthy spiritual life.
When Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them,” (Matthew 18:20) he certainly did not intend to indicate that the Divine Presence is absent when I go for a solitary walk on the beach. But Jesus did seem to believe that a special power and presence becomes available when we gather in community to acknowledge the reality of that presence.
There is an aspect of spiritual growth that only takes place when we enter into faithful, responsible relationship with other people. The act of sticking it out in the often difficult and sometimes painful reality of human community enables us to grow spiritually in a way that is unlikely to occur without the sometimes awkward presence of others.
It is impossible for “two or three” to gather without some form of organization. It is necessary to agree upon a time to assemble, a place to gather, and some idea of how long we will meet. We need to have at least a vague outline of what we will do when we are together and who will fulfill what roles.
Whenever there is organization, there is some form of institution. The word institution simply signifies “a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society.” The institution is the structure that enables our gathering to happen with some degree of efficiency. There is no community without some form of institution.
The problem with institutions is not that they exist, but that they have a tendency to take on a life of their own. There is always a risk that institutions stop serving the well-being of the gathering and instead gather people only to perpetuate the institution.
Fifty years ago people may have been willing to pledge allegiance to an institution because they believed in the goodness and importance of institutions. Those days are gone. We live in a culture that questions everything. We can no longer take for granted that our institutional structures will be honoured or even respected. We cannot rely upon the unquestioning loyalty of our constituents to keep institutional structures in place.
Whether we like it or not, people will walk away from any institution they perceive to be no longer serving the needs of the people it exists to support. We may lament the breakdown of institutional loyalty; but complaining about it will not change the reality. Better marketing and more efficient operational procedures are not the answer.
The challenge for institutions today is to consider how they can best serve the people they hope to attract. We need to rethink how our institutions look and how they operate in order to ensure that those who share in the institution feel the institution exists to support their flourishing.
What kind of customs, practices, relationships, and behavioral patterns does the church need to develop in order to support the development and nurture of a thriving spirituality in our culture? What does a healthy institution look like in a culture that is deeply suspicious of institutions?
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 27, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Lindsay
Thinking about the word ‘institution’ versus the word ‘organisation’, …. it seems the word ‘institution’ has the more negative connotation.
It seems an institution implies an old, mature, solidified organisation, where the environment in which it operates is known and it is possible to apply rigid rules which are understood and accepted by all participants … and there is little tolerance for individuality or creative interpretation of those rules. The goal of such a body would be to eliminate mistakes, encourage predictable behaviours … to aim for zero defect. There would be little tolerance for change in an institution. It would likely be more hierarchical in management structure and bureaucratic. It would be an artificial and highly structured man-made concept.
A healthy organisation, on the other hand, implies a more natural, organic, open system or dynamic social arrangement, which enables it to interact with and adapt more efficiently to it’s environment. It would be a collective collaboration, … would expect, learn from and rise up to meet challenges … be self-healing… flexible, creative and part of it’s environment which is also in a constant state of flux. There would be fewer rules. Instead of being carbon copies of each other, participants would each be valued for their unique contribution to the organisational structure as a whole.
Maybe this is just a long-winded way of saying, I’m not much excited by the word ‘institution’ ….
January 28, 2011 at 6:00 am
inaspaciousplace
you have given a beautiful description of the difference between a healthy and a sick institution. I wonder when/how/why the word “institution” in and of itself took on such negative connotations. Why does “healthy” institution sound like an oxymoron to so many people?
Is it possible we hurl the word “institution” at an organization we no longer want to take seriously in order to dismiss it without feeling guilty?
January 28, 2011 at 7:51 am
Lindsay
When I hear the word institution I immediately think of a mental institution like in “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest’ …. it’s an automatic thought.
I like the concept of a chaordic organisation, which operates on the edge of order and chaos … and quite far away from control. I can’t find any good write-up on it though to explain how it works … even my trusty wikipeadia has let me down … it’s an idea first espoused by Dee Hock who successfully innovated Visa but can apply to any kind of organisation. It’s rooted in an observation of how nature actually works … and ties in with the observations biologists and scientists are making … I realise that Visa is probably a dirty word now … the way the economy has been going … but the basic concept seems quite sound.
There aren’t a lot of examples out there … but if we think of the internet – world wide web – and how it’s organized … that gives a kind of a clue to how an organic organisational structure can operate … with separate autonomy but still as part of a wider network. A ‘governing’ body’s role is more advisory, to set standards and best practices, assist with setting up links, based on feedback and experience received from the outer nodes … ie. the organisations at the rock face.
January 28, 2011 at 10:38 am
jaqueline
Art is a good example of chaordic principle.
Artists are comfortable on the edge between chaos and order. We are not afraid of chaos, and we find in it the potential for new form – it is where new life comes from. I would have to say that may be true of creative people in any field.
I sometimes wonder if that is one reason why people are a bit nervous of artists- we look too comfortable with chaos. Many are afraid of it…but it is those in-between people, the ones who are OK on the edge who we need in order to bring forth form ..without them we just reject chaos, and without new life coming from it we risk the death of what is already established.
January 28, 2011 at 8:05 am
Lindsay
As I’m thinking about it a bit more … perhaps the early churches would be another good example of how a chaordic organisation looks ….
January 28, 2011 at 10:29 am
jaqueline
I am typically troubled by Christians referring to the early church as the ideal model. ( not saying you are doing that Lindsay, it is just you mentioning it brought it to mind).
It seems to me that is like saying a seed is an ideal model for a tree.
There is a lot of concentrated energy in a seed and it has to have water and light poured on in abundance for it to take root an grow, hence the powerful stories and events of Acts…..but then to look at a tree struggle and imagine it needs what it did when it was a seedling is a bit too farsighted to adequately meet the needs of the present.
Eg If the tree needs pruning, we are going to miss that, as we don’t do that to seedlings. And if the tree needs to die to let new life spring forth we will miss that too.
January 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Lindsay
“I am typically troubled by Christians referring to the early church as the ideal model.”
Jaqueline, yes, like you, I’m not a big proponent of discarding any organisational model outright and jumping onto the next bandwagon … simply because pendulum is swinging the other way. It seems there are valuable lessons to be learned by examining all extremes … what works, what doesn’t, why, in what historical and environmental context, etc, etc. Usually no single model ends up being ideal. I believe that successful organisations are those that are flexible, able to adapt, borrowing from a hybrid of multiple models, as well as a home-grown common sense approach
As I searched in vain on the internet last night for an updated description of what a chaordic organisation looks like, I was surprised to see there is little written about chaordic organisations after 2005, when the writing seemed to fizzle out. Which leads to the question …why? Yes, the concept is possibly intuitive and difficult to describe within our current western view without good examples, but one would think this alone would not be an insurmountable problem … I would have expected further examples of such organisational structures to be found and their effectiveness researched a bit more closely. This doesn’t seem to have been the case, though. Why? I don’t know for sure, but suspect that maybe it’s because the big shining example of a successful chaordic organisation, Visa International, is a sticky point at the moment … going hand in hand with lack of adequate controls over irresponsible money lending policy … and too much credit. So, do we throw the concept out completely without further ado, and keep looking for the next big thing? I’m not an economist … I’m a bit more comfortable with our banks being a little more staid, and soulless institutions because of the purpose that they are supposed to serve. Perhaps a mature organisational structure … an institutional structure … lends itself better to a banking world? But, even then a bit of heart and personal adaptation, friendliness, context still goes a long way, even in the banking world.
January 29, 2011 at 10:13 am
Lindsay
Hey Jaqueline, … Sorry about the monologue … I wish I wouldn’t do that …
I’ve been thinking about what you said about art being a good example of chaordic principle which led to another wicked idea … do you want to have some chaordic fun?
January 29, 2011 at 6:36 pm
jaqueline
I don’t notice a monologue Lindsay…this looks like a discussion…
January 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm
inaspaciousplace
I have never heard the word “chaordic” (neither has my spell check). But I love it. It seems to me that, in fact, “chaordic” is the only kind of organizational structure that actually exists. There are no organizations that are fully ordered and, if they are fully chaotic, they will not remain organizations for long. We all live on the cusp of chaos and order. The only difference between some people and others and some organizations and others is that some admit it and some pretend it is not true.
I wonder what it looks like to really acknowledge the line we all skate between chaos and order and find the beauty and the energy in that place!
January 29, 2011 at 6:33 pm
jaqueline
I agree Christopher….life in fact is nothing but the dance between order and chaos brings life….the extremity of either brings death.
but while much of our society tries to order itself to protect itself from the extremity of chaos, the fear of chaos produces fundamentalism and we have the extremity of communism and the uber order making of Nazi Germany as examples of order gone wrong ….( and in the end producing the disintegration it feared )
January 29, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Lindsay
“It seems to me that, in fact, “chaordic” is the only kind of organizational structure that actually exists. There are no organizations that are fully ordered and, if they are fully chaotic, they will not remain organizations for long. We all live on the cusp of chaos and order. The only difference between some people and others and some organizations and others is that some admit it and some pretend it is not true. ”
I love it!